PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Is it a function of age?

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - Is it a function of age? (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/308398-function-age.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 2830286)

In 1967-69 I worked in a gas station--full time in the summer, part time during school.
Esso--then Exxon sold 3 grades of gas--94, 97 and 100 octane. They discontinued the 101 octane about 1966

Every time we had rain after a long dry spell, we knew the phone would ring for "no start" service calls. Most of them seemed to be Chryslers. Maybe that's why Chrysler went to electronic ignitions earlier than the others, for their whole line. Most everyone had transistor ignition on HP models.
We do tend to view the past thru rose-colored glasses. Remember when 10,000 miles per a set of tires was good? Carburetors were acceptable because it was the only way to mix fuel and air--except in a very few HP models. The Rochester FI on early Vettes was so bad that a friend of mine told me that they simply replaced them with Q-jets, and used the FI units for door stops. Oh to have a time machine and visit that dealer and pick up some door stops! Anyway, in cold weather, with a cold engine, the first start was often a problem. Pump the accelerator to inject a little gas into the manifold, and set the automatic choke, wait a few seconds or minutes for that fuel to vaporize, and hit the starter. No instant starts like today, but grind, grind, grind, until it started, or the battery gave out. Batteries, as well as Generators, or Alternators were of much lower ratings than today. A 30 amp Alternator was OK.
Drum brakes---I never had a problem with high speed fade, but did lose brakes due to water floooding the drums--drove for literally MILES standing on the brake to generate enough heat to dry them out.
How about vacuum windshield wipers? They would nearly stop when the engine was driven hard --WOT produces little vacuum.
No child safety locks on doors, and we didn't lose many children by them falling out.
Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?
Remember rust starting almost before delivery--at least in some parts of the country--, and large rust holes on 2-3 year old cars?
How about Ford's Muscle Parts? They had a catalog of HP parts, and the best way to add the parts to get whatever horse power you wanted? The full Shelby kit for a small block--intake, 4 bbl, cam, lifters, springs a keepers was around $400 IIRC, including the aluminum valve covers? Of course you could buy a new car for $2000, so $400 is a pretty good piece of the cost of a car.
Cars had "character". Maybe today's vanilla, dead-on reliability is better.

LOL! You're description of cold starting reminded me of something. I'm even older than you, if you can imagine that! I'm a '49 model.

About a year ago, someone gave me the Highway Patrol TV show series on DVD. It was filmed in the late fifties. They would jump in a brand new car and grind on the starter for a number of seconds before it would catch. In today's world of EFI, that sounded really funny.

The prices of the time were something I remember well. In early '63 I bought rod bearings and an oil pan gasket for my '48 Chevy. The rod bearings were $1.02 each and the pan gasket was $.90. When I finished and filled it with gas it cost $.19 a gallon.

My Dad had an independent repair shop in the fifties where I "worked" as an elementary school kid. I remember very well the day the man came in and opened up the Coke machine and messed with it for awhile. When he closed it, he put a sticker on it that broke my heart. It said 7 Cents. I had been paying a nickel.

From that era I also remember my Dad talking about a Cadillac that came in needing a COMPLETE exhaust system which consisted of two mufflers, two resonators and about six pipes. I remember him telling people that the job billed to the customer for almost $100 parts and labor. That probably wouldn't buy even buy one muffler today.

Yes, those old cars were neat, but they weren't exactly a picture of longevity or reliability. The good news was that they were simple enough that anyone with a little mechanical ability could keep them going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps (Post 2830336)

No, I'm thinking that by seeing that '70 Chevelle or '57 Chevy drive by and

wistfully remembering days gone by will be enough youth-recapture that we won't jump off and buy a sports car and trade in the wife on a newer model.:D;)
OTOH, I have been pondering an older SL.....:rolleyes:.....but the Wife stays.

I guess I have never been the nostalgic sort and just realize those days are gone and moved on.

And she is reading this, isn't she? Don't lie, we know. :D

Don't forget the incredible power that we have now too, coupled with reliability and safety. My little fourbanger hatchback has more power than a 6.6L V8 from the 1970s

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible (Post 2830368)

The good news was that they were simple enough that anyone with a little mechanical ability could keep them going.

And maybe that is the real issue. The backyard hacks can't work at it and it takes some real studying and tools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 2830286)

Every time we had rain after a long dry spell, we knew the phone would ring for "no start" service calls. Most of them seemed to be Chryslers. Maybe that's why Chrysler went to electronic ignitions earlier than the others, for their whole line. Most everyone had transistor ignition on HP models.

I've run points ignitions on two vehicles without any issues. The first was my '63 Dart with a '79 360 out of a Cordoba with a distributor sourced from a '72 Fury. Second is my '71.

Quote:

We do tend to view the past thru rose-colored glasses. Remember when 10,000 miles per a set of tires was good?

No. I must not be old enough. I usually get about 20,000 out of a set.

Quote:

Carburetors were acceptable because it was the only way to mix fuel and air--except in a very few HP models.

From the 50's onward you could buy a diesel Benz in the U.S. In a low performance application a non-turbo diesel is better than carbs. Mechanical diesel injection paired with a turbocharger is WAY better than carbs, but they didn't offer that in a passenger car until 1978.

Quote:

Anyway, in cold weather, with a cold engine, the first start was often a problem. Pump the accelerator to inject a little gas into the manifold, and set the automatic choke, wait a few seconds or minutes for that fuel to vaporize, and hit the starter. No instant starts like today, but grind, grind, grind, until it started, or the battery gave out. Batteries, as well as Generators, or Alternators were of much lower ratings than today. A 30 amp Alternator was OK.

I've been using the '71 lately. It has points, Zenith carburetors, and a choke system that kicks off after about six seconds. I can still get under way in 30 seconds on a cold day. The real suckage of carburetors is the lousy fuel economy you get with them.

Quote:

Drum brakes---I never had a problem with high speed fade, but did lose brakes due to water floooding the drums--drove for literally MILES standing on the brake to generate enough heat to dry them out.

My Dart had 9x2 inch drums all around. That coupled with the lightly modified 360 I put in it made for some interesting driving. I am now well acquainted with the phenomenon of brake fade.

Quote:

Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?

We never tried, but you could probably have gotten five people into the trunk of my first car.

Quote:

Cars had "character". Maybe today's vanilla, dead-on reliability is better.

It depends on the buyer. A few companies still make a car with character. Fewer still make a car with character that also features Accord-like reliability. They are not inexpensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines (Post 2830495)

Don't forget the incredible power that we have now too, coupled with reliability and safety. My little fourbanger hatchback has more power than a 6.6L V8 from the 1970s

Are both vehicles NA or is the 4 banger having forced induction? Are we talking torque or HP at a very high RPM?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 2830505)

Are both vehicles NA or is the 4 banger having forced induction? Are we talking torque or HP at a very high RPM?

NA 6.6L vs. 2.0L turbo. Another comparison would be the "high performance" turbo V8 from those firebirds. 4.9L turbo 210hp, right about the same as my 2.0T. Admittedly 345lb/ft torque is higher than the 4cyl...after a simple ECU reflash it gets pretty damn close though. Direct injection is a wonder!

Edit/add: OTOH it shows how much turbo and DI technology have progressed. A turbo on a production musclecar engine was revolutionary back then, now everything high performance has a turbo on it and they are making gobs of power. My ultimate machine would have to be an R34 Skyline GT-R. The new ones are incredible (seen a few of them on the roads too) but I'm not a fan of the styling. Technologically they are a wonder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 2830286)

...Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?...

When I was in high school in the early 70s, gas prices shot up and people unloaded their gas guzzlers. I bought a beautiful 1965 Cadillac Coupe de Ville from my neighbor for $800. Sometimes if we got a day or two off from work, we would load up the Caddy and head for the George Washington National Forest in the Shenandoah Valley. While my buddies slept on the ground, I slept in complete comfort in the trunk of the Caddy. I used an inflatable boat for a mattress. That was probably the nicest car I will ever own. Caddy was on top back then.

My big brother, in a rare period when he was making lots of money, bought a new 65 C. De Ville. White with red leather. On the way to the 68 prom, a drunk ran a red light and I T boned him in my 64 Plymouth Fury (383, factory Hurst 4 spd.). My girl and I unhurt after the dust settled, my brother took me out to the barn with quart of A1 Pilsener Beer, the AZ generic sudsy of the day. He made me chug about a third of it and handed me the keys to the Caddy and said get to the prom. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven driving that boat back into town to the prom.

modern design is a function of passenger and pedestrian safety, fuel efficiency, mod cons, space, etc etc etc.

Invariably, they will all look the same at some point as we strive for better efficiency figures, better pedestrian safety, etc etc etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neanderthal (Post 2830581)

"Pedestrian safety"
Pontiac had some front end designs back in the 70's (IIRC) that looked like they'd present serious danger to pedestrians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchivito (Post 2830537)

...new 65 C. De Ville. White with red leather...

Gorgeous car. Mine was white with white leather, with black fabric in each of the four sitting positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus (Post 2830867)

Gorgeous car. Mine was white with white leather, with black fabric in each of the four sitting positions.

Yup, I think I had wood all the way to town, and not because of my girlfriend draped over my shoulder.:D

In the sixties our neighbor could barely get 5K on a set of tires on their Caddy.

The fellow at the end of the block got 60K on the front tires on his Karman Ghia. My dad nearly had wood when he told me about the Karman Ghia tire mileage.:P

I love fuel injection but my 87 Mitsubishi has a carb and it works as well as fuel injection for starting. Nothing short of astounding actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2829088)

That would be a 1970 Belvedere GTX

Belevedere and GTX are different models..both Plymouth's..but different animals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines (Post 2830507)

It's not necessarily the AMOUNT of torque that makes an engine feel "torquey." It's where it lies in the power band. A good example is the TDI VW. It makes very little horsepower, but what little torque it has is at an RPM that allows it to push you back against the seat.

The 289/302 Ford didn't have much torque, but due to where it fell in the power band, it FELT torquey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible (Post 2831820)

Agree--When I had my first Falcon Sprint Convertible, back in 1966-1971, very few people would believe that the little 260 ( smaller version of 289) was bone stock. The acceleration numbers were not that good ( 0-60 in about 11 seconds) but if felt quicker. 0-30 was about 3 seconds about as quick to 30 mph as anything then on the road--remember the skinny tires.

Before it was called Camero

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry (Post 2829072)

Actually, the Camaro came out in 67.

This is true. I too had an extreme interest in cars as early as 7 years old. Just to show off in front of my brothers, I would always call off the make of a car approaching before they could. Matter of fact, sheesh!, that was before there was a freeway here!!
As a sophmore in high school,1967, I had my sites on the 1969 Mustang! Then 1968 came and the movie Bullet. After that my dad crushed my dream of a fast car.
Parents would not allow me a car until I graduated. An incentive to stay in school I guess. But in September 1966 a photographer from some car magazine snapped a picture of a new kind of Chevy being tested. Then Chevrolet was considering the name of this new design.
Two names made the top of the list. The Panther, or the Camero. Well we all know which one made the cut.